The reason is so that the free exercise of religion is not interfered with by the state ...

That is Free Exercise Clause, not the Establishment Clause.

What does the Establishment Clause mean, rand?

... not that anti-religionists could create a doctrine that science cannot include religion ...

Science does not include religion. Period.

... so ban thought in the class-room if it relates to religion.

Thought is not banned.

How would one ban thought if one were inclined to do so? Install a really big fMRI in the classroom, point it at one student at a time, analyze their thoughts and banish those who were thinking of a god?

The establishment clause has the same purpose, to protect religion and religious speech. The idea is if we had an official religion, such as secularism, then religion could become threatened by the state.

Your position is that religious thought and theory must be restricted when it comes to science and so you advocate not allowing the free exercise of religion. That Orwellian approach has turned the 1st amendment on it's head to do exactly what the 1st amendment was written to prevent.

The establishment clause has the same purpose, to protect religion and religious speech.

Nope.

wiki writes:

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit:

1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or

2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose.

At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 ... The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which lead to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

The Establishment Clause has been interpreted to mean that the state can't do anything that "aid(s) or prefer(s)" any religion:

ACLU writes:

It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 53 (1985)("[T]he individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all"); see also County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 589-94, 598-602 (1989); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1, 17 (1989); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961).

In 1992, the Supreme Court held in Lee v. Weisman, that prayer -- even nonsectarian and nonproselytizing prayer -- at public school graduation ceremonies violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

A school -- and by any reasonable interpretation, a teacher at that school -- cannot proselytize. In any way, shape, or form.

The idea is if we had an official religion, such as secularism ...

Secularism: A neutral attitude, especially of the State, local government and public services, in matters relating to religion.

Secularism: The promotion of secular policies like the separation of church and state.

Secularism: A doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations.

Secularism: Secularism generally refers to an ideology that promotes the secular (as opposed to the religious) particularly within the public sphere.

Put your thinking cap on.....what was the purpose in restricting an official religion?

Could it be that establishing an official religion would restrict the free exercise of other religions?

Nah, just couldn't be.

As far as Jefferson's term "separation of Church and State", it doesn't state separation of God or religious thought from the State. The Baptists, Jefferson and the meaning of the idea of the time was not what you are suggesting. In fact, the term originates with the Anabaptists and is not meant to suggest the State not acknowledge God or the Creator, merely that the State cannot enforce religious law.

Maybe you don't realize your posts on employee's not doing their jobs has nothing to do with my original comments on the free exercise clause? It appears that is the case.Suffice to say, teachers not doing their jobs is not related to the Constitutional claims I have made.

Is it your belief they are?

* sigh *

Molbiogirl said that creationism couldn't be taught in schools.

You replied that this conflicted with the free exercise clause.

I pointed out that the free exercise clause would not, in fact, protect someone who taught creationism in a public school.

If you are willing to concede this point, then apparently there is no conflict between mobiogirl's assertion and the free exercise clause. But if you still think that there is one, perhaps you could share it with us?

Her comment is that it is unConstitutional to teach creationism in schools, and my comment is that this turns the 1st amendment on it's head, restricting the free exercise of religion.

Your point about employer/employee relations isn't what we were discussing. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

A mental exercise.....Think of a situation where the school board mandates creationism be taught so the teacher isn't teaching his or her private, personal religious beliefs......now, think of your posts arguing about teachers teaching their personal beliefs...

A mental exercise.....Think of a situation where the school board mandates creationism be taught so the teacher isn't teaching his or her private, personal religious beliefs......now, think of your posts arguing about teachers teaching their personal beliefs...

Then the same remarks would of course apply, except that in this case about the school board rather than the teacher. It is not a "free exercise of religion" for school boards to spend public money on promoting their favored religious beliefs, any more than it is freedom of speech for them to spend it on promoting their favored political beliefs, or an exercise of their Second Amendment rights to spend it on buying up a private arsenal.

Seems like you are still missing the point. The issue isn't employer/employee relations. If a school district exclusively teaches a doctrine specific to a single religion, you could have a point. Imo, it's still not a violation as the school district isn't "Congress" but that's a separate legal issue.

However, teaching a general religious tenet or teaching a specific religious tenet alongside other beliefs is not, imo, seeking to establish a national religion.

What secularists have done is taken the 1st amendment, designed to promote religion, religious freedom and protect it into something hostile towards religion and restricting it.

Seems to me that I have explained why a school board mandating the teaching of their religious views isn't protected by the free excercise clause.

The issue isn't employer/employee relations. If a school district exclusively teaches a doctrine specific to a single religion, you could have a point. Imo, it's still not a violation as the school district isn't "Congress" but that's a separate legal issue.

See post #10.

However, teaching a general religious tenet or teaching a specific religious tenet alongside other beliefs is not, imo, seeking to establish a national religion.

And if seeking to establish a national religion was the only thing that the First Amendment prohibetted, you'd have a point.

What secularists have done is taken the 1st amendment, designed to promote religion, religious freedom and protect it into something hostile towards religion and restricting it.

Wrong. The First Amendment in no way restricts religion, and cannot possibly be interpreted as doing so, as every secularist and indeed anyone who doesn't live in Opposite World will tell you. What it restricts is the government.

Your explanation is wrong because you assume they would be promoting their religious beliefs when in reality, they could be doing the exact opposite, for example, and want to give a minority view perspective a fair hearing.

And for the record, you are for the restriction of religion and using the government to do so if you are for restricting scientific theories in the classroom based on their religious affiliation or religious flavor. That's just a fact whether you want to admit it or not.

Your explanation is wrong because you assume they would be promoting their religious beliefs when in reality, they could be doing the exact opposite, for example, and want to give a minority view perspective a fair hearing.

Just as free exercise of religion does not permit a Christian schoolboard to mandate Christian prayers, it would also not give them the right to mandate Muslim prayers.

And for the record, you are for the restriction of religion and using the government to do so

Restricting the government from meddling in religion does not restrict religion. It restricts the government.

if you are for restricting scientific theories in the classroom based on their religious affiliation or religious flavor.

I am not for restricting scientific theories in the classroom. I am in favor of keeping creationist rubbish out of the classroom, because it's rubbish.

The teaching of scientific theories, by the way, is also not covered by the free exercise clause. For reasons that I trust are obvious.

Even better would be to look in a science dictionary. Here's a definition from an online medical dictionary that explains the whole problem quite well.

In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws.